Clynelish 14

Sorry to be jumping on this thread kinda late, but I've just bought a bottle of Clynelish 14. My interest to add it to my cabinet was in part due everyone's comments on this thread; and also from the reviews on the "Scotland, Whiskey and Distilleries Site".

The reviewers gave Clynelish 14 a "19/20" rating, and wrote: "This great successor of the dead Brora distillery is far most one of the best whiskies I ever tasted.... A must for each good whisky collection."

I guess I'm jumping in here a little late too, but at the moment I have an older bottling of 12 year old Cask Strength (57%) Clynelish available for sale (elsewhere) - The one with the brown and orange label.
I have also just sourced a "Premier Malts" distilled March 1971, bottled Nov. 2003 Cask 2704, 54.2%.
Yes, that's 32 years old.

After reading this thread I am beginning to wish I could just open and drink them!

As you has recently started a whisky auction site, I think you should be a little careful posting information on bottles for sale in various threads. It could very easily be misunderstood as spamming of the forums...

Anyways - sales announcements should be posted in the whisky for sale forum.

I don't think it's a problem in this context--we were all talking about Clynelish, and it came up naturally in the conversation. Anyway, you're not the only person here with a site of some kind to flog, and as long as you don't treat the forum like your own personal billboard, I don't think anyone will object. Anyone agree/disagree? What are the standards?

The Australian branch of the SMWS gets bottlings of Clynelish in on nearly every shipment, and they sell out almost straight away. The standard of the bottlings has been exceptionally high, and Clynelish really does deliver on so many different fronts.

Clynelish

Andrew Fenton wrote 1 Feb 05:
On a separate note, does anyone have a theory on why Clynelish is not highly regarded by most review sites? In general I can find some degree of accord between my opinions, or at least understand that a certain recommended whisky has quality even if I don't like it myself. However almost always you see the Clynelishes being rated in the high 70s, which seems barmy to me........
Clicker 7 wrote 2 Mar 06
The reviewers gave Clynelish 14 a "19/20" rating, and wrote: "This great successor of the dead Brora distillery is far most one of the best whiskies I ever tasted.... A must for each good whisky collection."

Well we had to try Clynelish 14 since there was so much written about it and we both tend to agree with the first rating. We also don’t get anything special out of Talisker 10. I guess we just don’t have much fondness for a peppery Scotch. We will stick with the peated Islays when we want distinctiveness.
Jill

I just love Clynelish. So I do not care for scores or points. And it goes to show that the reputation of a distillery plays a major role in scoring because it sets the bias for the expectations of the scorer.We have discussed here that (for example) Macallan did not do so well with some bottlings and not only the fine oak, that Springbank seems to have had some weak productiopn years and that Edradour has problems wit soap. But that did not seem to influence the esteem these distilleries hold with the aficinados and score book producers.On the other hand Bowmore and Bruichladdich were hit rather hard here in the forum and yet there are some very good expressions and bottlings of both distilleries out there. Let´s see what the profesional scorers make of that in the future.Personal taste is all that matters, let the augurs sell their books with their notes but don´t let yourself be influenced overmuch.

This is a good point Kallaksander. There is something a bit mad about putting a numerical rating on a subjective sensation although when it is linked to broad tasting experience,ie Murray you tend to listen and treat it as objectivity. Best to seek out as many opinions as possible and if possible try things for yourself. There is a lot of great whisky I would have missed if I'd relied on Jackson's ratings as a guide. As regards Clynelish I have tried the McKillops bottling rated at 95pts by Murray and I have to say this is an occasion were my subjective senses match his

no Lawrence, I just do not care what they score for a whisky. I have several books with scores and points given to whiskies and when my interest in whiskies began I bought those books and read them. They inspired me but I did not buy whiskies because of high scores. It turned out that my preferences and whisky scores rarely met. Sometimes my appreciation was higher sometimes lower and with time I gave up buying books which gave points to whiskies.I was talking about bias in my other post. I have no problem if somebody takes the scores for whiskies in those books dead serious. But peering after scores alone let´s you miss interesting experiences in either direction, good ones ond not so good ones.Are you writing books, Lawrence? If you do, I do not hold that aginst you

I agree. I've ordered some whiskies without reading about them, then read the tasting notes and scores and said, "oh, no, what have I done?" when I read about weird notes or a score in the 70s. But then more often than not the whisky arrives and often it is nothing like what is read. I enjoy reading and writing tasting notes but experienced whisky drinkers know the only way to know a whisky is to have it for yourself. It would be a shame if you only bought whiskies scored over 80 -- I think you'd miss many which are favorites for you even if they aren't favorites for whisky writers.

The problem with scoring is that if you do it a lot, you have to come up with some "objective" system for scoring. Jackson and Murray both talk about complexity, for example. Well, complex whiskies are often very interesting, but occasionally one might not really taste all that great, while "simpler" ones might be really marvelous experiences. Whatever criteria you use, you can be blinded to the fact that you simply like this whisky, and don't like that one. And if you score them based only on that, then your scores are useless to anyone else.

I recall Murray serving us several whiskies he rated very highly, that I thought were simply unpleasant to drink.

There is no objectivity. There might be whiskies that most of us agree are great, and others that most of us agree are awful, But there is always going to be someone who thanks the former is awful and the latter is great. I have no problem with scoring and people who do it, but as far as I'm concerned it's just for fun.

Does scoring really have to be that objective to be effective? Look at IMDB's Top 250 Movies, the polls aren't filled with opinions of skilled or experienced movie reviewers, but ordinary folk who have seen the movie and want to quantify their experience in some sort of tangible way. Does it have to be relative to other movies they've seen for it to be a fairly accurate indication of the general appeal or otherwise of a movie?

For similar reasons, I primarily use the Malt Maniacs Matrix for getting a general overview of an expression. I can see the cumulative score and what the highest/lowest rating is. If the average of 12 people is a score in the high 80's to low 90's, I'm pretty sure that the whisky has something going on.

If you have the wallet to support the random, blindfolded, spinning and pointing method of choosing whisky, then you are a lucky sod. But as a 'normal' consumer, I want to be as informed as I can be when going into a shop with an urge to buy something.

bamber wrote:I agree about the imdb - if you see a film in the top 50 you've not watched it's time to order a copy off ebay

I don't entirely agree about the Malt Maniacs. It's a great great website full of interesting stuff and a noble enterprise but ........

Whilst their ratings are useful as a guide, their scores seem to be a function of age and rarity as well as quality. I just feel they need to be taken with a pinch of salt also.

Agreed, there are a lot of rare malts on their list that i'll never have the chance of sampling, and they do always seem to rate them highly, but you'd generally expect them to rank well wouldn't you?

I happen to disagree with some of the scores they offer on some malts, but in all I find the opinions of a collective few a bit more substantial than the opinion of just one man, be it from MM or from these opinion and information rich forums.